LAW

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Mumbai doctor granted divorce after wife locks fridge

Rebecca Samervel, TNN Sep 13, 2013, 01.53AM IST

Tags:

(A family court has granted…)

MUMBAI: A family court has granted divorce to a doctor couple married for 19 years on grounds of cruelty after he told the court that she had repeatedly insulted him and had denied him food by locking up the refrigerator.
The court accepted the doctor's contentions and passed an order ex parte as the estranged wife did not appear in court. The former couple, were married in January 1994 and had no children
In the petition filed in September, 2011, among many other complaints, the petitioner said that at the time of the marriage, while he was studying medicine in Mumbai, the woman was pursuing her degree in Karnataka. He alleged that during that time, whenever she was in the city, she would insist on staying with him despite him living in the bachelor quarters. He further alleged that she suspected him of having affairs with his colleagues. This he said, forced him to change his campus and eventually even a take a drop from his final year MD examination.
The doctor also alleged that since 2003, the woman refused to work, cook or cohabit with him. He claimed that he had to shut down his hospital due to her "doubtful nature".
Further, he said she started locking the refrigerator and deprived him of any eatables and water and every time he was forced to ask her for the key. The doctor claimed that he could only drive the car if she accompanied him or was using the car.
The petitioner said that he was taunted for looking older than her and she refused to see movies or visit places with him. He alleged that this caused him tremendous mental pain and agony. Stating that her behaviour affected his work, the doctor claimed that female patients got an impression of insecurity while under his treatment.
After going through his evidence, the court held that it was practically identical to his allegations. "As the petitioner was not cross examined due to consistent absence of the respondent, whatever the petitioner has stated in his petition and affidavit of examination-in-chief has gone unchallenged. Therefore, I have no alternative but to accept the same in toto," the court said while granting the divorce.

The doctor claimed that he could only drive the car if she accompanied him or was using the car.
The petitioner said that he was taunted for looking older than her and she refused to see movies or visit places with him. He alleged that this caused him tremendous mental pain and agony. Stating that her behaviour affected his work, the doctor claimed that female patients got an impression of insecurity while under his treatment.
After going through his evidence, the court held that it was practically identical to his allegations. "As the petitioner was not cross examined due to consistent absence of the respondent, whatever the petitioner has stated in his petition and affidavit of examination-in-chief has gone unchallenged. Therefore, I have no alternative but to accept the same in toto," the court said while granting the divorce.

Child custody case: Six months with father, six months with mother, Karnataka HC says

P Vasanth Kumar, TNN Sep 27, 2013, 08.31PM IST

Tags:

BANGALORE: In an interesting case, the Karnataka high court has passed an order sharing the custody of minor child equally between the father and the mother in a year.
As per the modified order passed by a division bench comprising Justice N K Patil and Justice B Manohar, the father will keep the child with him from January 1 to June 30 and the mother will take care of the child from July 1 to December 31, till their son attains majority.

The court has also directed both the father and mother to maintain education and other expenditures of their son in equal proportion. Both have been given visitation rights on Saturday and Sundays. The minor child has to be allowed to use telephone or video cconference with the father and mother as the case may be. The bench was of the view that the father's love and affection has a powerful impact on the development as well as the health of the child apart from the love and care of the mother.
KM Vinaya, the mother, had challenged the December 1, 2011 order of a family court in Bangalore city wherein her husband BR Srinivas was granted the custody of their son, 12 and half year old Vathan.

Man gets divorce for harassment by wife

A Subramani, TNN Jun 2, 2012, 03.52AM IST

Tags:

CHENNAI: Distress and social humiliation heaped on a husband by his wife by filing a false complaint and getting him arrested would amount to cruelty, which is a valid ground for divorce, the Madras high court has said.
A division bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice M Venugopal, passing orders on an appeal filed by a man, said: "The mental cruelty will continue to hurt a person throughout and any amount of healing words or healing touch would not wipe out the tears/scars, which continue to cause hurt and prick one's life."

The man had filed a divorce plea in the family court on the ground that his wife quarrelled with him and his family members for trivial matters and frequently threatened to commit suicide unless he agreed to separate from the joint family. His petition said she later lodged a complaint of dowry harassment and ill-treatment against him and six of his family members. He was arrested and put behind the bars for 22 days. When he applied for bail, she opposed it. She also alleged that they attempted to kill her .
The case, however, ended in the acquittal of the man and his family members after she informed the court that she intended to live with her husband and would not press charges against him.
However, when his divorce plea was taken up for hearing, she filed a separate petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In April 2008, the family court dismissed his plea and refused to grant divorce. He then approached the high court.
The bench said filing of a criminal case, the man's detention in judicial custody for 22 days and his acquittal by the criminal court "clearly constituted mental cruelty meted out to him, who admittedly would have undergone a traumatic experience and humiliation in the social circle. All these acts would clearly fall within the ambit and purview of 'cruelty'," the bench concluded, adding that the husband was entitled to the relief of divorce.

Parental intrusion ruining couples' marital life: Delhi high court

PTI Feb 19, 2011, 07.50pm IST

(The HC said parents should…)

NEW DELHI: The interference of parents in the married life of their daughters has become a major cause for playing havoc with the lives of young couples post marriage, the Delhi high court has said.

Expressing concern over rift between couples due to parents' persistent interference in their daughter's married life, Justice Kailash Gambhir upheld a lower court's decree of divorce to a man on the ground of his in-laws' frequent interference in his marital life.

Justice Gambhir said parents should draw a line to let their daughters lead happy married lives.

"All parents guide, teach and discipline their daughters and are concerned about their welfare after marriage but it is imperative for parents to draw a line as the prime concern should be that their daughter is happily settled in a new atmosphere at the husband's place," he said.

But, it should not mean day-to-day monitoring of the affairs taking place at the matrimonial home of the daughter, he said.

Parents should not become uninvited judges of problems of their daughter, become an obstacle in the daughter's married life, plant thoughts in her mind and gain control over her and promote disharmony in her family life, the judge said.

"They are expected to advise, support and believe in their upbringing maintaining a discreet silence about the affairs of the matrimonial relationship," the court said.

"The present case is an unfortunate example where the parents of the appellant, instead of putting out the fire have fuelled and fanned it," the court said, dismissing an appeal filed by the wife challenging the lower court's order granting the man decree of divorce.

According to the husband, the difference with his wife started a few months after their marriage in 1990 due to frequent interference of his in-laws.

He alleged that he was even hit publicly by his father-in law two years after his marriage.

Seeking decree of divorce, he had approached the court, which allowed his plea on the grounds of cruelty by his wife due to continuous interference by his in-laws.

In-law interference in the marriage

I have written articles on this topic before but am finding that in-law and interference from other family member is becoming a larger and larger reason for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage lately. It just happens so often.

I had a client who consulted me the other day with his sister with a view at getting divorced. His sister was actually the one who phoned me as she was concerned about her brother. She was on holiday from the United Kingdom and explained to me that her brother was looking a lot older these days due to all the problems he was experiencing in his marriage.

At the consultation I asked my client whether he believed that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and he said yes. He explained to me that one of the main problems in his marriage was that his in-laws were interfering. They were accusing him behind his back of being a bad father and a bad husband.

My client explained to me that he and his wife had two young children aged four and two. During the day the two children stayed at his parents-in-law’s house. My client and his wife both worked but didn’t earn much and couldn’t really afford to send their children to a proper crèche.

The parents-in-law were however trying to control how the children should be disciplined and were continuously also asking my client for money. Even though my client did not have to pay his parents-in-law a certain set cash sum for looking after the children, they were forever making loans from my client and not repaying him.

My client and his sister explained to me that they did not believe that the parents-in-law were looking after the children as a favour, but were doing it more to try and extract money from my client. The in-laws according to my client were also not very good with handling finances and were always in debt. The bank was furthermore about to foreclose on their house.

I explained to my client that what he was experiencing is very common in divorce cases. I always urge people who are going through problems in their marriage rather sometimes to distance themselves from in-laws, parents and other family who interfere. The more parents and parents-in-law are involved in your life the more say they will have as to how children should be raised.

The problem in our society these days is that married couples really struggle financially and sometimes are forced to ask parents or parents-in-law for help with the children. There is no option available to some. This involvement of parents could work very well or could cause major problems in a marriage. Each situation is different.

The role of grandparents is merely to help out where they can with transport or babysitting. I have just seen it happen so many times that when grandparents become too involved in the lives of children and grandchildren, this leads to all sorts of problems in a marriage.

article written by Cape Town divorce lawyer, Peter M Baker

When is it Illegal to Interfere with Someone's Parenting?

As parents we have all had times where someone has tried interfering in our parenting style. Whether it is a minor issue such as a person telling the parents that what they are doing is wrong, or a major problem of nosy individuals involving the authorities to investigate parenting styles, the question of "is it legal" leaps to mind. Let's explore the concept of parental rights and find out where the line is drawn.

Family Members that Interfere

Some family members can be one big walking nightmare. You can count on two things in every person's family; one, that all people are going to have an opinion, and two, not all parents in the family are going to see eye to eye on parental decision making. But, this does not give anyone the right to interfere in the parenting styles of others.

Grandparents sometimes feel as though they have rights to interfere. That is not legally accurate. They are also not seen as any better than an aunt or uncle or cousin, etc. The only two people that have any say in the actual parenting of a child are the parents.

One of the biggest issues right now in the family law court room is grandparent's rights. Do they have them? Sometimes, yes, most of the time, no. Here's why. Most courts have made it clear that grandparents are not the parents. The law does not recognize them as having any rights as far as the decisions or the welfare of the children. They are in the family but not a vital part of the child rearing process. If a grandparent wishes to secure any type of forced visitation, should the parents get tired of the meddling or constant undermining of their parental decisions, then they must show the court that the child depends on them or will be lacking in a large area of their life should the grandparents be taken out of the picture.

Unless, of course, the situation is that the grandparents are the guardians or caretakers of the kids. Then the law may be on their side. First, grandparents that are interested in staying close to the children, if they have been caring for them, should secure custody through the courts with an experienced attorney. This has had a good track record in family courts. The courts are more likely to consider the grandparents involvement if they have had physical custody.

As for other family members, the courts usually do not even consider their involvement unless the children have been taken away from both parents for serious crimes or are declared unfit parents. So, in short, if someone is interfering in your family and you wish it to stop, then you must explain the legal standing of parental rights. Be fair, let them know that you appreciate their love for your child but that you will not tolerate interference.

Neighbors or Friends of the Family

From the nosy neighbor who calls the authorities every time a child doesn't go to school to the friend that likes to think that they are helping by providing unwanted opinions, both can be irritating and in some cases, illegal. Let me explain.

Irritating comments are not illegal. They are out of line, rude and flat out annoying, but not illegal. However, anytime that the authorities are called or brought into the family situation, that can be illegal. Unless there is verifiable proof that a parent is breaking the law, harassment charges can be filed. In many instances, a person that interferes with a parent or repeatedly calls the authorities on them without actual proof that anything is wrong, can face multiple charges and be fined for using emergency services to investigate false allegations.

Regardless of who demands the investigations, whether it is a family member or some other third party, all can face charges if the allegations are false or if there is no real emergency.

In Conclusion

We all need to remember that freedom of speech is everyone's right. But, that is where the line of their rights and your rights are drawn. They can speak their mind to you as two adults having a conversation. But, when it comes down to the actual interference with your parenting methods, it is your duty to protect your parental rights. Every parent has the right to raise their children as they see fit as long as no laws are being broken.

As per the latest laws in India, women are entitled to equal share in property

As per the latest laws in India, women are entitled to equal share in property. This has been in vogue for more than a decade. But is that functional in the case of Indian women? As long as people don't talk about property, all brothers and sisters are the greatest chums of each other. But once division of ancestral property comes up as a part of family discussion, we see the ugly selfish minds of people against their own kith and kin. Even today there are people who think that wealth should go to the son because he performs their last rites(in most of the hindu patriarchal families). They consider the son's lineage as their own and they prefer to give him everything they have even if he is born many years after the daughter. They easily cut her off from her legitimate rights because this has precisely been the trend since age immemorial. All these years the hindu property laws have been biased against women. An average hindu mind is still not prepared to accept the new laws. The daughter often finds that she gets a very raw deal, even if she has had a bad marriage. Now the trouble is that the people the lady has to deal with is her own mother, father and brother, whom she may have loved and cared for. If a handful of women have had a fair deal from their parents, good for them. But the fact is society makes things worse in many ways. The favorite topic is the marriage. Hindu marriages are mostly conducted by the girl's parents. The boy's parents may want a "grand" marriage. The girl's parents tell them that if the marriage is simple and the expenses are nominal, then they would give her a flat. But they are made to spend damn heavily on the marriage, then they would not give equal property share for the girl but just a few thousands as gift vouchers. She can't ask for property thereafter. All this discussion takes place in the absence of the girl, who is supposed to feel shy and stay in her room. So the girl's father and boy's father decide that the marriage ceremony should be grandly performed, with all costly paraphernaila hired and heavy sarees and jewels for relatives. Let us not talk about property now. The girl's father can do whatever he wants with the property. Well, why should the boy's parents be worried about what the girl gets? They apparently don't mind sacrificing the girl's interest for a few happy moments for themselves.After the marriage and a couple of years, the divison of the property takes place. The father and the brothers of the girl, keep her off. They tell her that all the property share she deserved was already spent on the marriage expense and dowry of the girl. Earlier the girl may not have been given a professional education because her parents at that time might have thought that this is after all a girl. Since her marriage expense is there before them in future, why spend on her education? Again when the property share is broached,they quote the same marriage expense. When the marriage expenses were taken care of mainly under the insistence of "her people" (who??? The husband's parents are now referred to her as "her people" ), ahemm... so as her people had asked for it, what makes her ask for equal proprety share? So the daughter gets nothing. She is treated as if she simply doesn't exist. Now who decides the marriage expense and at the cost of whom? The net result is that the girl is deprived of her share for no fault of hers. I don't speak of "smart" girls who are such clever Gonerils and Regans that they manipulate their parents and see to it that they get a major share of property. Other than an equal fair share, they claim the entire heap of the mother's jewels too, as a token of affection. But there are women who may have had a comparitively poor education, a bad marriage and yet a bad property deal doled out by her own parents. When it is the father's self earned property, it is easy for him to say "It is not necessary for me to give you anything.... it is my money and it should go to my son". Now this is a very delicate issue that can complicate things. She may agree, she does but feel hurt. The relationship sours and she decides never to turn to her parents any more. When the question of taking care of parents come, these days parents do depend a lot on their daughters. It is so mercenery to neglect responsibility for not having got a share, so she goes out of her way to help them in many ways. Even other wise, an average woman is scared to ask anything by way of share because her brothers promptly allege that her husband is demanding dowry through her by clandestine means, brainwashing her innocent mind. Something that may be false and wholly untrue. The husband may keep out of this completely. Yet, relationships get bitter when her husband is dragged into this unnecessarily and accused of what he does not even intend. It breaks family ties and daughters become permanent enemies of their own parents. The tricky aspect of all this is that every problem cannot be solved be law. There may be gentle hearted girls, who willingly forgo what is rightfully theirs because their brains get twisted by dowry issue. If the husband opens his mouth, specially when the father in law is propertied, she begins to suspect that her own husband of demanding dowry. Things get complex when an unsuspecting mother in law makes a request to the girl's parents to gift a certain jewel, small trinkets like a half a soverign gold ring or a tiny vessel that any one can afford for the birth of a child. This gets featured in the family discussion as "demand for dowry. "At school level and college level we violently attack dowry system and call it an evil and so on. But in real life things could be so deviantly interpreted to the disadvantage of daughters. Educated hindus bash dowry system so much that the daughters are expected to stay silent and take anything that is offered. Sometimes it is so painful to see the way parents jealously safeguard the interests of the son. Property share is confused with dowry issues and marriage expenses in such a clever manner that the daughter is finally kept out of family property. Finally all you really get is what you earn by the sweat of your brow. Family property goes to the male, thank you. If any thing is demanded by the daughter or offered to the daughter, may she be hanged for desiring "dowry".Phew! When is Indian Legal system going to define dowry and property share in more clear, distinct terms to protect the lady's interests? Or the least, what advice would you like to give so that every body gets a fair share with out filial bonds getting upset?